These are my last tweets re the ILGA situation & how that has played out in Scotland since the weekend, I think the following is important to say.

If we lived in a country with a remotely healthy political landscape & one not steeped in misogyny, here is how things would have >

>gone after a female political candidate raised the text of a declaration as a safeguarding issue.

1) After it was raised in conference & publicised by the media that the declaration literally states that all laws preventing adolescents being able to legally consent to sex >

>should be abolished, there would have been an initial reaction across political parties & relevant orgs (not just LGBT orgs) that this is clearly not okay & must be addressed. No-one would be blamed for raising it or indeed for criticising it, even if some believed the >

>declaration had been written incorrectly - because safeguarding should be a value we can expect all groups to share.

2) Then orgs that signed the declaration would urgently be clear that they did not support any lowering of the age of consent, & would be clear that they were >

>seeking clarity on why this wording was used, from the authors, & ask for it to be redrafted. Govt funded member orgs of any signatories would do the same.

3) At which point, due to pressure, there would have been some form of clarification from the authors a the declaration >

>would then be redrafted, not least to ensure that paedophiles across the globe cannot take this section as validation of their abuse of children - many of whom deny that it is abuse at all because they believe children can consent, & the wording here only helps them validate >

>this to themselves & others like them. This is also why it's not good enough to say that it's okay because a tiny minority of people, due to their work experience, understand what the language is meant to mean.

And that would hopefully be that.

What would not have happened>

>1) Women would not have been called homophobic for highlighting that orgs funded by the Scottish Govt & which have campaigned to remove the sex based protections of women & girls in the Equality Act, are also members of a signatory to a declaration that recommends lowering the >

>age of consent.

2) Prominent men across political parties & publicly funded orgs would not make specific women raising these safeguarding concerns targets for abuse, harassment, threats & doxxing, by claiming they were driven by hate instead of genuine care for the welfare of >

>children. Men would not have ignored the patriarchal history of women's needs, concerns & motives being ignored or misrepresented, so that women can be ignored &/or dehumanised for their benefit. Men would realise they have a responsibility to undo this patriarchal conditioning>

>3) Men, including political candidates, would not be threatening women with violence, or advocating violence against a group including them, and political leaders would not ignore any calls for VAW, because they would not find VAW acceptable in our society.

4) Journos would >

>not have engaged in gaslighting re the meaning of words, including the term 'adolescent', & would also have covered any unfair or abusive treatment towards women, including misrpresenting women & threats of violence, & would also have asked the parties of any political >

>candidates doing this to women, for comment. They would also have sought comment from the authors of the declaration in a bid to clarify the content & any further action being taken.

So that is how the last few days would have gone, if we lived in a remotely healthy, feminist >

>society. And that is how they should have gone.
Women deserve so much better than this patriarchal, misogynist bullshit.